N.D. Ohio Court Reconsiders and Vacates Earlier Judgment Dismissing 1933/1934 Act Claims in TCP Securities Action
On April 27, 2016, the Honorable Dan Aaron Polster of the Northern District of Ohio issued an order in favor of plaintiffs vacating its earlier dismissal of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 claims in the TCP International Holdings Ltd. (“TCP”) securities class action. TCP designs, develops, manufactures and delivers energy efficient lamps, fixtures and internet-based lighting control solutions.
The case alleges that TCP, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of TCP’s initial public offering (“IPO”) violated 1933 and 1934 Act claims. Specifically, the case alleges that throughout the class period, TCP made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about its business, operations and prospects regarding Underwriters Laboratory ("UL") and Energy Star approval of TCP's products. As a result of these false and misleading statements and/or omissions, TCP securities traded at artificially inflated prices during the class period, with the price of its shares reaching close to $5 per share.
In the order, the court states, “After a careful reconsideration of the issues presented, the [c]ourt finds [p]laintiff's arguments well-taken,” and that the plaintiffs argue “correctly, that the [c]ourt's previous order granting [d]efendants' motion to dismiss [p]laintiff's Second Amended Complaint failed to address one of [p]laintiff's claims, namely, that [d]efendants violated Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act when they made material misstatements or omissions in their post-IPO filings and statements.”
Robbins Geller attorneys Paul J. Geller, Jack Reise, Robert J. Robbins, Doug Wilens and Sabrina Tirabassi obtained this result on behalf of plaintiffs.
Sohol v. Yan, et al., No. 1:15-cv-00393, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56049 (N.D. Ohio April 27, 2016).